If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfactionClick here now..

On May 5, 2014 my daughter had a car accident. Progressive was our insurance company. The police report placed the blame with my daughter. My daughter knew without doubt she had a green arrow to turn because she was turning with a group of cars. The other drver hired and attorney and sued for injuries. She was not hurt because she was out of the car removing stuff from the backseat.

I asked Progressive three times to check the red light camera at that interest all within the first two weeks after the accident. The first time, the adjustor told me she called the police and they told her she had to have a citation number, which was not true. She did not need a citation number. All she had to have was the date of the accident and the license plate numbers. The next two times, she would not tell me if she would do it or not. She also wouldn't tell me if they were going to investigate the traffic light pattern. Progressive found my daughter at fault. June 10, I call and talk to a manager. He tells me he will order an open report for foortage on the camera at this intersection. Wow! Really! Why didn't the adjuster do that back in May?!!!

Today, over 3 months later, I'm talking to the man that manages the red light cameras in Irving. He tells me those cameras take moving footage 24 hours a day and the footage is kept for 30 days. He also told me all insurance companies know this and know how to order an open report for footage. He could see where footage had been ordered for my daughter's accident, but it was past the 30 retension period!

I have no doubt Progressive did not pursue the camera footage on purpose. The other driver hired an attorney and Progressive would be forced to go to court with the footage to show that the other driver was at fault. It was cheaper to blame my daughter than go to court. As a matter of fact, as soon as Progressive found out the other driver hired an attorney, their attitude changed immediately. They were cool and I could tell they were going to do nothing. They never even investigated the traffic lights at that intersection. A few days after the accident, my daughter and I took footage of the traffic lights and knew immediately that the other driver ran a red light.

This intersection is particularly bad. I've seen at least half a dozen drivers anticipate the light turning green while it is still red. I watch one man in a red pickup go and then stopped in the middle of the intersection when he realized our light was still red. Progressive's investigaton of my daughter's accident was very poorly handled.

If you are ever in an accident and there is a red light camera, call the city traffic department and ask for an open report on the camera at that intersecioin immediately! They will burn a copy to a DVD and send it to you and you cans send it to your insurance company. Don't ask the insurance company to order the report.

AUTHOR: Nancy - ()

SUBMITTED: Wednesday, August 27, 2014

POSTED: Wednesday, August 27, 2014

I'm sure I've forgotten or don't recall everything. I did forget to say, both drivers have Progressive Insurance.

Can't see my original report, don't remember if I said my daughter's right hand was badly bruised with hairline fractures in the fingers. It took 2 months to heal. She was so traumatized by the accident she couldn't get in the driver seat without having a panic attack for weeks. Very unusual for her. She's been driving for 6 years with no accident, this is her first accident.

The other driver had two small children in her car who proceeded to play tag around the car, in traffic after the accident!

The other driver told the officer she had 3 witnesses. According to Progressive adjustor, when she interviewed the other driver with her attorney pressent, she had no witnesses. The adjustor also asked her if she had any other proof that she was not at fault (poorly worded on the adjustor part) and the other driver told her no. She was not lying. She had no other proof that SHE was not at fault. The manager for the adjustor told me, if the other driver and her attorney had valid proof that my daughter was at fault, they would have let them know. "They would have been shouting it from the roof tops."

I forgot to mention, the accident I witnessed was the most scary thing I've ever seen; a perfect example of a T-bone accident. I still do not understand why the lady in the Lexas didn't see the Durango coming. I saw it and so did the driver beside her; when we swapped phone numbers with the lady in the Lexus she told me she saw the Durango coming and didn't go. She was the second witness for the lady in the Lexus. While the Durango had extensive front-end damage and was undrivable, what concerned me most was the fact that the air bags did NOT deploy for the driver or the passenger. The Lexus' doors were badly dented (understatement) with the Durango's license plate stuck in the door with no serious caving into the passenger seat. I learned one thing from that accident. My next car is going to be a Lexas!

I forgot to mention, my District Attorney friend is a friend from high school. We reconnected at a high school reunion, we stay in touch and meet for lunch on occasion with another friend from high school. I have a boss/friend from a job I worked at in 1996 to 1998 who is Deputy Major Pro Tem for a city in the DFW area. I'm very proud of him! When I worked for him, he was already involved with city politics. A few years ago, when we boarded our horses, my daughter was good friends with a girl whose father was a high powered attorney in Ft. Worth. He talked my daughter out of wanting to be an attorney.

I've also received replies from William Shatner and Homer Hickam on Twitter. ROFLMAO!

AUTHOR: Nancy - ()

I witnessed the accident, don't give a rat's a... if you believe it or not. I must give you credit, you'e successfully muddied clear water and the original issue is totally lost. Good work!

Progressive intentionally failed to order footage at the intersection of this accident, despite my 3 requests. If I had known I could order the footage, I would have done it in a heartbeat. As of yesterday, this is no longer a issue.

Despite all the drama in this report, all it took was for Robert to say the other driver may have order footage and I put the wheels back in motion.

So, thank you Robert! Despite your trolling efforts and trying to make me out to be an idiot, you gave me exactly what I needed.

AUTHOR: Robert - ()

SUBMITTED: Monday, August 25, 2014

POSTED: Monday, August 25, 2014

For someone who you consider a "troll" you sure do put a lot of effort into TRYING to discount what I stated. But unfortunatly you have found that in the end logic always prevails and that is what is in reality so frustrating to you.

So much so that it seems like every time you post you come up with more information that you never even mentioned before.

On July 10, 2014, I witnessed an accident. I was stopped at a red light behind a black Lexus.

Isn't it amazing how all of the sudden you remember an accident you witnessed that amazingly almost is an identical match to what the PI said police do. But what is more amazing is that you only remembered this accident AFTER I questioned a few things the PI stated. Or is this another case of you just "thought" you had posted it earlier.

His statistics noted that 90% of the time, in cases he has investigated, the poiice find fault with the wrong driver, usually driver #2.

- Wow the police are wrong 90% of the time. Do you even hear yourself as to what you are saying? Why isn't he screaming this from the nearest Rooftop? Heck, if he has this proof I would bet that every news organization and police watchdog group would love to "break" the story of how the police are mis-handling investigations. You need to immediatly go to your local news stations in Dallas and give them this proof. Perhaps this pressure on the police and Progressive would finally get them to see it your way.

The Ford dealership's insurance adjuster told me this fact first.

- Oh wait a minute...the Ford adjuster told you the same thing. So now you have 2 people telling you that the police are wrong 90% of the time. WHY OH WHY hasn't ANYONE gone to the news media.

The other driver has not been awarded anything yet and more than likely will be awarded very little, per my conversation with a District Attorney friend.

- Oh so now we also add in a District Attorney..heck who needs the news media you have one better. I'd be curious. When you told him your undisputable fact that 90% of the time the police are wrong what did he say?

Anyways while it has been fun there is something known as diminishing return and there are only so many ways that I can tell that trying to hang your entire case on the "Only if Progressive ordered the video"..defense isn't going to get you anywhere. And if you think that these points are rough..again just wait until you get into court.

So to avoid a lot of back and forth do you have any more people you have talked to that up until now you have failed to mention? Or perhaps there are additional things you have encounted(perhaps you finally did buy that time machine) that proves your daughter innocent.

AUTHOR: Nancy - ()

SUBMITTED: Monday, August 25, 2014

POSTED: Monday, August 25, 2014

On July 10, 2014, I witnessed an accident. I was stopped at a red light behind a black Lexus. The light turned green and we go across the intersection, to my right I see a lady in a Dodge Durango flying thrugh the intersection and just plows into the side of the black Lexus. I had stopped where I could still see our light and it is still green.

I pull over with the lady in the Lexus to be a witness and to make sure she is ok. I talk to her for a few minutes and I go to check on the lady in the Durango. When I get to her, an officer is already there because both drivers called 911 and the officer was around the corner. He even said he heard the accident.

He goes to the Durango first. She tells him she had a green light. I'm waiting for him to finish with her to tell him that she had a red light, when another officer shows up. The first officer tells the other officer, "Your at fault is over there." pointing to the black Lexus I was behind and knew had a green light.

I immediatly tell them both no, she's not the at fault, the lady in the Durango is at fault. I was floored when he looked at me and said, "Are you sure?" I had to explain that I was behind the black Lexus, and yes, I am sure. He still looked sceptical and tells me, "She (lady in Durango) told me she had a green light!" He's slightly raising his voice and the other officer is looking at him like he's lost his mind. I had to tell him three times the lady in the black Lexus had a green light and is not at fault.

So, yes, offcers favor the first driver they come to, when it's not obvious who is at fault. Also, the lady in the Durango was older, had children in the car which creates empathy for her. The other driver was in her twenties. Needless to say, I gave the lady in the black Lexus my phone number. She also had one other witness.

AUTHOR: Nancy - ()

SUBMITTED: Monday, August 25, 2014

POSTED: Monday, August 25, 2014

If she ordered footage, believe me, if they had that kind of proof, they'd be screaming it from the roof tops. She also told the police she had 3 witness. When Progressive talked to her and her attorney, she said had no witnesses and when pressed for other proof, they admitted they didn't have any other proof.

No harm, no foul in ordering footage for my daughter. Like I've said, it would have proven once and for all who was at fault! In this case, it was a very necessary piece of evidence and Progressive some some stupid reasonavoided getting it.

As of today, the claim is still open with Progressive. The other driver has not been awarded anything yet and more than likely will be awarded very little, per my conversation with a District Attorney friend. He told me this is part and parcelf for insurance companies and not to expect them to do a further investigation.

The PI keeps detailed statistic on all his cases and recording pertainent info on: how many times polce officers place fault with the wrong driver, which driver the police go to first is #1 in the descrption, how many times driver #2 is found at fault, as well as any mistakes on the police report itself. His statistics noted that 90% of the time, in cases he has investigated, the poiice find fault with the wrong driver, usually driver #2. He wasn't the only person who told me this. The Ford dealership's insurance adjuster told me this fact first. She looked at the police report and the first thing she said was, "your daughter is driver #2. Did they go to driver #1 first? I see that all the time. They usually find the first driver not at fault." She also told me not to expect Progressive to persue proof, since the other driver hired an attorney.

I ddn't hire the PI, but his statisitic seem to be well known throughout the insurance community. I doubt seriously he was dying for my business, since it would be over 6 weeks before he could do the accident simulation.

AUTHOR: Nancy - ()

SUBMITTED: Monday, August 25, 2014

POSTED: Monday, August 25, 2014

You, Robert, a troll. A trouble maker and a jerk! You'd like to think your smart, but you're not! You've completely missed the point and since you are the only person rebuting, I thnk you do this for the hell of it.

The point you seem to be missing is that I fiound out Friday, August 22, 2014 from talking to the red light manager from Irving, that I could have ordered the red light camera footage myself! In May and June, I had been told I Progressive needed to order it and they avoided ordering it, just to keep from forcing the other driver's atorney from suing Progressive for not going by the police report.

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, for goodness sake. Insurance companies do this everyday, all day long. I could have stopped it cold in its tracks if I had known I could have ordred it myself. End of story!

I went to another insurance company because Progressive has the worst record for screwing things up. The following link is to an article about how Progressive intentional avoids proof. This poor lady had one witness and well...just read the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/your-money/progressives-side-of-the-insurance-case-that-blew-up-on-the-internet.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And FYI, you've done nothing but imply that my daughter was at fault. Doesn't matter that you didn't say as much, you implied it!

AUTHOR: Robert - ()

SUBMITTED: Monday, August 25, 2014

POSTED: Monday, August 25, 2014

First, I don't like your attitude.

- Well guess what...I don't really care and really didn't expect you to like me pointing out some issues you have with your claims. But if you don't like my attitude for pointing these things out, do you really think it would be any different in court?

If you go into court with the "Only if the insurance company ordered the footage..." you are going to loose.

Let me also remind you, I reqested the footage! If my daugher wasn't so certain she was not at fault, why would she ask me to order the footage.

- I never once said that you didn't THINK your daughter was at fault. In fact I truly believe that both of you are 100% convinced that your daughter was correct and in no way caused the accident. But that doesn't always make it so.

First, the first driver that police get to at the scene of an accident, they will believe that driver even if they are lying. It's known as First Driver Empathy. Second, if there is an accident where someone is turning, police always place the fault on the driver who was turning despite witness who swear otherwise.

- So does your daughter have any INDEPENDENT witnesses stating she was not at fault. More importantly..does the other party have any INDEPENDENT witnesses stating your daughter was at fault? You never in all of your posting never mentioned that. Of course you didn't mention the PI at all in your first post...so is your next post going to now include witnesses that you just "thought" you mentioned before?

Third, when one driver hires an accident attorny that quickly, (the accident was on the 5th, the other dirvier hired her attorney on the 9th) it's usually because they know they're at fault and by hiring an attorney, it will stop all investigation of the accident.

- And the PI had statistics to back this up right?

Let me just mention a bit more about the PI..

So he was going to go to the Police Officer who wote the report, let him know that in his years of investigation the police ALWAYS believe the driver that was hit and ALWAYS blame the person turning...and at the same time going to ask him(after basically telling him he didn't do his job in the beginning) to just change the police report. Yea..I would have loved to have been there for that conversation.

Look in the end nothing anything that anyone one here says is going to change your mind(although it is not meant to). It was to make you look at things in a different way. And perhaps your daughter is right. But when you get to court, don't be surprised if their attorney doesn't have a simulation or two showing how your daughter was at fault, and hope that they don't come up with a few witnesses to the accident stating your daughter was at fault. But hey if you can convince a judge that your observation at the intercection for a short period of time proves that the person ran a red light in the past, that the police ALWAYS find the person turning at fault...more power to you.

I will leave you with one more thought. What if in that 4 day period the other driver DID order the footage from the Video and it does show your daughter at fault, and that is the reason why they filed suit.

AUTHOR: Robert - ()

SUBMITTED: Saturday, August 23, 2014

POSTED: Saturday, August 23, 2014

Despite my effort to park correctly, I still got a ticket for $59.50.

- If it was your best effort you would have cramped your wheels per California Vehicle Code. As when you got your license you agreed to abide by ALL rules and regulations including parking. Unless that is you can point to the section that states you only had to follow the sections you agree with.

If you think this regulation is unfair or unneeded because you are special, then you need to contact your local Representatives and ask them to modify the law to put in your "X-Terra Exception".

AUTHOR: Nancy - ()

On May 20, I called and talked to a Private Investigator. At this point, it was clear Progressive and the officer were not willing to at least investigate traffic light pattern.

I meet with the PI, we go to the intersection, he, my daughter and I. He and she drive the intersection twice, he talks to her for over an hour. He tells me, "You're right the traffic light pattern makes it very clear the other driver is at fault." He points out: Why wasn't another south bound driver involved in the accident, if the south bound light was green? Even if your daughter ran a yellow or red light, since she was last to turn, she should have been hit by a west bound driver.

He tells me three very strange things he's noticed in his years of investigation. First, the first driver that police get to at the scene of an accident, they will believe that driver even if they are lying. It's known as First Driver Empathy. Second, if there is an accident where someone is turning, police always place the fault on the driver who was turning despite witness who swear otherwise. Third, when one driver hires an accident attorny that quickly, (the accident was on the 5th, the other dirvier hired her attorney on the 9th) it's usually because they know they're at fault and by hiring an attorney, it will stop all investigation of the accident.

He tells me he will do a simulaton of the scene and accident, will go with me to talk to the officer who wrote the report and ask him to amend his report and wll appear in court, because it will go to court $3500 paid up front. The preliminary investigation to determin if he would take the case was $300 which I paid. I was floored. We couldn't afford it.

He also told me to have the insurance company order video footage. I had already asked once, so I asked again and once more thereafter all within the 30 day retension period for the footage.

I fought long and hard for two months. I don't think I or anyone else could have insisted or pushed for proof and investigation.

AUTHOR: Nancy - ()

We complained to the police and to Progressive, hence excalating it to the adjuster's manager at Progessive.

I was wrong. I thought I had stated in the original report that my daughter was last in line to rurn. Even if the light had turn yellow then red, the other driver, who was south biound, would not be the next to go. It was west bound traffic.

I asked Progressive three times to order footage. The first time, the adjuster called the police and asked if any citations had been issued. The police told her she needed a citation number, which was not true. According to her manager, he was not sure why she didn't order footage.

Red light cameras only catch those drivers who run a light that has just turned red. The other driver had been stopped south bound, because north bound left turn traffic was turning across in front of her!!!!!

Don't know any better way to explain it! If you can't visualize it, then you'll never understand why it is very clear my daughter was not at fault. The delay by Progressive to order the footage, not a citation, is suspicous.

AUTHOR: Nancy - ()

SUBMITTED: Sunday, August 24, 2014

POSTED: Sunday, August 24, 2014

The other driver was and had been stopped at a red light while north bound left turn traffic was turning. My daughter noticed that everyone south bound was stopped when she started her turn and couldn't understand how the other driver was in front of her so fast. My daughter was the last car in group of cars turning as I already said. The other driver went between the car in front of my daughter and my daughter. There wouldn't have been any other cars for the other driver to hit. Also, none of the other south bound drivers moved. My daughter was concerned that they were going to hit her as well, but it was West bound traffic behind my daughter was trying to get by after the accident. South bound traffic didn't move until after the west bound traffic had negoiated the accident.

The traffic lights at this intersection have a set pattern and I verified it with the camera manager. After north bound left turn green arrow, all lights north and south bound turn red to allow West bound traffic to go next, not south bound as the other driver thought. If anyone should have hit my dauther, it would have been a driver west bound on the service road. We watched the light pattern for over an hour. It's a repeated pattern.

I asked the camera manager, if a driver has been stopped and then goes while the light is still red, will the camera take a picture. His answer was more than likely not. Red light cameras are only trying to catch people who are running a light that has just turned red. That's the reason for the 24 hours video footage. If there is already traffic moving in the intersection, how would the camera know if it was someone who was stopped and then ran a red light antisipating a green light or someone whio has a green arrow and is turning left?

BTW, I asked for footage knowing there was a very good possibility that my daughter was not at fault and I asked for it the next day after the accident and two more times in a two to three week period well before the 30 days. The fact that Progressive bumbled and beat about the bush and delayed getting the footage makes it all the more suspect that they simply wanted to place fault on my daughter to avoid being sued. I was told numerous times that since the other driver hired an attorney, they had to go with the police report and they purposefully delayed ordering the footage, which I could have taken to the officer and he could have amended his report.

Let me also remind you, I reqested the footage! If my daugher wasn't so certain she was not at fault, why would she ask me to order the footage. She is the one who told me there is a camera at this intersection. It would be kinda stupid to order footage of an accident when you know you're at fault, right? My daughter and I were more than prepared for the fact that she may have been at fault, but our own investigation, because Progressive was doing nothing, proved otherwise and we were both surprised by the traffic light pattern. The footage would have ended any doubt once and for all. So, why did Progressive not order the footage? Becasue they didn't want to be sue for not going by the police report, but even that doesn't make sense. The footage woud be undeniable proof.

AUTHOR: Robert - ()

SUBMITTED: Sunday, August 24, 2014

POSTED: Sunday, August 24, 2014

Perhaps the biggest claim that you have a problem with is this of the other party running the red light...at a Red Light Camera. Do you see your claim that a request needs to be within 30 days a bit of a problem?

If a party runs a red light, the camera will capture it and they receive a Citation. Does this citation all of the sudden disappear in 30 days? No...that Citation is accessible from the Police as well as the courts. So if as you claim they ran a Red Light, all you have to do in court is request the court to locate the violation. But if there is no such violation...then your claim goes basically down the drain..right? Or are you also going to try and claim that even though there is no violation...the person still ran the red light. Or perhaps that all a person has to do to avoid paying any violation is to wait 30 days when it magically disapears?

Your daughter claims that she turned on a green arrow in a group of cars. Okay were ANY of the other cars hit? Was she the first car? The Last Car? if she was in the middle or front exactly how did every other car(especialy the ones behind her) miss getting in the accident? How come not a single one of these other cars stopped and offered to be a witness? You again see the issue? Perhaps your daughters story wasn't exactly correct.

You then have another problem..the police report. The police report stated it was her fault...Why? What did the Police report say and why do you disagree with it..even though YOU weren't there. One big thing you also didn't put is where was the damage on each of the cars?

But say she did have a green arrow? Was it safe to turn. Green may mean go, but it is still the drivers responsibllity to make sure it is safe. Again, for example of in fact the driver went through on a Yellow light, it is very possible that your daughter was not paying attention to the surroundings and just went.

A few days after the accident, my daughter and I took footage of the traffic lights and knew immediately that the other driver ran a red light.

- Really? So does this footage look back in time as well? Just because one person(or even most every person) in the time you were there ran a red light does NOT mean that the other driver did. I could probably sit at any major intersection at any given day at any given time and probably find a percentage of people "Running" a red light..sad but true. But that gives no proof that someone else on a different day did the same thing.

Look, I get it you want to believe your daughter 100% and know she can do no wrong. Well...unfortunately sometimes that isn't the case. Is that the case here? Well in all honestly only your daughter and the other driver know for sure because they were the only ones involved in it. However, everyone else(such as the police) can piece things together based on the available evidence. Where it does appear to stack up against your daughter.

BTW, took my insurance to another company.

- And do you think any other insurance company would not do the same thing?